Dune

'Dune' may have a dated look due to the poor special effects but it still is an enjoyable adventurous science fiction movie. The film is awkward and feels a little rushed but the sense of adventure is well maintained. Lynch fans who haven't yet seen this movie might be disappointed because this isn't like any of his later works. Almost everything about it, except for some of the acting is over the top. But it feels like a science fiction movie because of the unusual names, the art direction etc. With the excessive use of CGI, it is nowadays sometimes difficult with science fiction movies to feeling the experience of the world the director creates. It was fun to see actors like Kyle Machlachlan, Sean Young and Virginia Madsen who were so young at the time. 'Dune' has its flaws and there are many of it but the idea behind it is creative and the film has heart to make it entertaining enough. It is certainly not among the best of its genre and nor Lynch's best but it's fun enough to roll along with.

Dune is very interesting, if not downright odd. However, the lore/universe has an alluring charm. Unfortunately, they don't do a good job of explaining the intricate political backstory of the movie. Another major problem is the pacing of the story, it's so too rushed. They made the mistake of trying to cram 2-3 movies worth of storytelling and lore into one 2 hours and 17 minutes movie. The production value (camera angles, special effects sets, costumes, etc.) is generally good for the time period. Some of the costumes are unintentionally comical and weird but that is what gives this movie its charm. Generally the acting wasn't great, besides the main protagonists. Over all it is an interesting tale that unfortunately fell short.

First of all I've read Herberts Dune saga and I loved the first book (the one the movie is about) and liked the rest.

Second there is a difference between the cinema version (137 min) and the TV version (190 min often referred also "special edition") which should also not be confused with the new version from 2000 (Frank Herbert's Dune). To keep it short the 137 version is great and the 190 min version sucks.

The TV version was split up to fill 2 evenings. For that they added about an hour of additional material not seen in the original version. While some of it is quite good like the prologue which went a little bit deeper into the Dune universe (Butlers Djihad) but most of it just destroys the atmosphere and the flow of the movie. On the technical side there is to note that the whole movie was Pan-Scanned which never is a good idea. Compared to the original version the quality really blows.

Now to the good one:

The movie is pretty much faithful to the book. There are things that were cut out from the book or it shows stuff that wasn't there, but what you see is CLEARLY Herbert's book which I thought is nearly impossible to translate into a (good) movie. It translates the "feel" of the book very well to the screen.

The most notable differences is that in the book Paul is at the age of 15 (at least at the beginning) while McLachlan more looks like 20 but I can live with that. The rest are minor things (like these sound modules) and some differences in continuity (the navigators needing the spice to well... navigate is revealed at the beginning).

The all actors give a solid performances. Notable are Kenneth McMillan (Baron Harkonnen) Patrick "Captain Picard" Steward (Gurney Halleck) and Sting as Feyd Rautha which really add to the movie.

The special effects range from crappy to good. The movie shines where it 's most important namely the sand worms which look fairly convincing. Personally I prefer (well done) miniature shots over those Episode 1/2 CGI effects which make especially environments look like plastic.

I think everybody who calls himself a Science-Fiction fan should have seen this movie which is a jewel under all those mediocre films that were spawned by Star Wars at that time. All the fans of the book should see it as what it is: A movie based on Dune. If you want the book word by word, don't watch the movie and read the book again.

I waited until I read the novel before I watched this. I am so glad that I did, because otherwise it would make zero sense. I can understand why it was considered a book that could never translate to film at the time.

It jumps past a lot of scenes in the book, so it more or less just appears that things are happening just because. What you end up with is a fever dream, but an absolutely stunning fever dream.

It is visually beautiful in a way that only existed in the 1980s. Practical sets that were incredibly imperfect but magical in the passions that shows through them. One fever dream set after another, dripping with absolute madness at every angle.

The acting is superb. Brad Dourif as Piter is phenomenal. Sean Young as Chani is stunning, though missing a lot of the character development. The whole family Harkonnen is beyond entertaining. Kyle MacLachlan does well with the role of Paul, though a lot of the character from the book is missing in the movie.

Is it perfect? No. Not at all. Relationships and bonds between characters are pretty much non-existent. The effects used for the shields looks like an abomination. Things happen without reason and the movie jumps ahead at a pace that makes it almost impossible to follow at times. Characters come and go and come back without reason. They omit characters and full-on story lines from the book. It is far from a perfect movie.

Look, this book is almost 900 pages long. There is no way you are fitting that into a movie with a run time that is less than 2.5 hours. So you end up with just a bunch of scenes jammed together like a wild psychotic trip. But even so, watching this movie was so enjoyable. I feel that it truly captures the feel of the book, and it is made with so much passion and love that it bleeds out of every fiber of this movie.

I can't give this higher than a 7 because it really is just over two hours of nonsense without the knowledge of the book. But dang did this movie hold true to the spirit of the novel. I loved every second that I watched this.

There are two groups of people who write at IMDb, the pessimists and the optimists. The pessimists love to complain about something or other in a film. The optimists try and find something good. DUNE probably ranks as one of those that feels like it's going to be good, but leaves a confusing, lackluster feeling in its wake. In an attempt to be optimistic, I will try focusing ONLY on the good parts. This might be tough.

I will give David Lynch credit (indeed, as Frank Herbert did when he saw this) for trying to take an enormous amalgamation of things and ideas from the novel and trying to turn them into a movie. Lynch's visual style is very raw here and everything in the production design seems to be under his spell.

The sets, costumes, cinematography, and choice of cast is excellent. All of them lend a flavor of difference that transcends whatever confusion is on the screen. (On the side note: I was sick of hearing Kyle MacLachlan repeating himself over and over) The creature designs by Carlo Rambaldi are very Lynch-ien, even though we rarely get to see them.

Overall, a sci-fi epic that requires a lethargic butt, an open mind, and a copy of Frank Herbert's novel to enjoy. Still, it is far superior to the TV miniseries of late (I know saying that is blasphemy to some). I refuse to rate this with stars or anything else.